If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)(uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

shared spaces.

What exactly is the point of attempting to mix pedestrians, cyclists
drivers disabled and blind people together?
I have been told by a friend that these parts of towns are disliked by most
users.
Drivers because its stressful watching out for people who are deaf, blind
listening to headphones, riding bikes etc.
Cyclists as they are not sure where to ride as they get shouted at by both
drivers and pedestrians, Pedestrians as they feel they need eyes in the back
of their heads
Wheelchair users who often get stuck in the middle of the traffic. Blind
cos they have no edge to follow and hence never really know where they are
while being sworn at by cyclists and nearly getting run over by drivers.
Who likes them? The planners of course as they look cool in the computer
generated graphics they present to councillors for approval. Its even got to
the state now where accidents like the fatal running over of a child in
Jersey are brushed under the carpet and much made of new trees planted
around the edges of such places instead.
Somebody needs to get themselves a life and realise that curbs were
invented for many reasons, and the main one was as a demarcation line to
keep the dangerous from the vulnerable.

What brought this on? well these town centre ideas seem to be the fodder
for local regional news programs at the moment, and it seems to me that a
whole lot of money is wasted on them which then need to be altered and new
crossings put back about 2 years later when 'footfall' gets lower due to
folk going elsewhere to shop.
Brian

On 16/11/2016 12:56, Brian Gaff wrote:
Somebody needs to get themselves a life and realise that curbs were
invented for many reasons, and the main one was as a demarcation line to
keep the dangerous from the vulnerable.

Someone round my way fell foul of one of these "shared space" schemes.
An elderly husband and wife were struck by a bus. The husband bounced
off and escaped with bruises. His wife who was walking with two sticks
ended up under a wheel. She is still alive but was injured so that she
will probably never walk again.

As far as I know, they are still conducting the "lessons learned"
investigation, and like all these type of report it will be filed and
nobody will learn the lesson.

There were a couple of letters in the local paper immediately afterwards
decrying the road layout, but that is last week's recycling and nobody
mentions it any more.

On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 12:56:56 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
What exactly is the point of attempting to mix pedestrians, cyclists
drivers disabled and blind people together?
I have been told by a friend that these parts of towns are disliked by most
users.
Drivers because its stressful watching out for people who are deaf, blind
listening to headphones, riding bikes etc.
Cyclists as they are not sure where to ride as they get shouted at by both
drivers and pedestrians, Pedestrians as they feel they need eyes in the back
of their heads
Wheelchair users who often get stuck in the middle of the traffic. Blind
cos they have no edge to follow and hence never really know where they are
while being sworn at by cyclists and nearly getting run over by drivers.
Who likes them? The planners of course as they look cool in the computer
generated graphics they present to councillors for approval. Its even got to
the state now where accidents like the fatal running over of a child in
Jersey are brushed under the carpet and much made of new trees planted
around the edges of such places instead.
Somebody needs to get themselves a life and realise that curbs were
invented for many reasons, and the main one was as a demarcation line to
keep the dangerous from the vulnerable.

What brought this on? well these town centre ideas seem to be the fodder
for local regional news programs at the moment, and it seems to me that a
whole lot of money is wasted on them which then need to be altered and new
crossings put back about 2 years later when 'footfall' gets lower due to
folk going elsewhere to shop.
Brian

They've just created shared spaces at the University of Warwick, and nearby Coventry (University of Warwick is the "posh" university in Coventry, being some 12 miles from the town of Warwick). Most students seem permanently plugged into headphones and the remainder are so up in the clouds either thinking about that assignment or thesis (or more likely sex, alcohol and rock'n'roll) that they happily walk into the path of cars whose speed is restricted nominally to 20mph by numerous road signs and fancy LED reminders.

As a driver there is a tendency blood pressure to rise and tension to increase in these areas. This causes most people to slow down but does nothing for progress or cardiac health. We might have less chance of squashed students but more chance of an early cardiac arrest.

The use of shared spaces probably comes from the bizarre 4-way intersections in North American cities closely followed by the jittery behaviour of motorists at mini roundabouts.

The town of Drachten, in the Netherlands, has removed all road signs and markings - apparently it works quite well, although if it's anything like Amsterdam or Copenhagen you probably have to expect a collision with cyclist.

On 16/11/2016 13:23, MartinR wrote:
The town of Drachten, in the Netherlands, has removed all road signs and markings - apparently it works quite well, although if it's anything like Amsterdam or Copenhagen you probably have to expect a collision with cyclist.

I thought Copenhagen gave priority of cycles over cars, so that if you
drive into a cyclist it is automatically your fault. At least, that was
the scenario when I visited there in the early 1980s, it might have
changed since.

I think that's the way they're supposed to work, i.e. to put everyone at
some unease about the other users rather than anyone "owning" the space.
In all the promo videos everyone is shown being supremely courteous to
each other ...

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news
What exactly is the point of attempting to mix pedestrians, cyclists
drivers disabled and blind people together?
I have been told by a friend that these parts of towns are disliked by
most users.
Drivers because its stressful watching out for people who are deaf, blind
listening to headphones, riding bikes etc.
Cyclists as they are not sure where to ride as they get shouted at by both
drivers and pedestrians, Pedestrians as they feel they need eyes in the
back of their heads
Wheelchair users who often get stuck in the middle of the traffic. Blind
cos they have no edge to follow and hence never really know where they are
while being sworn at by cyclists and nearly getting run over by drivers.
Who likes them? The planners of course as they look cool in the computer
generated graphics they present to councillors for approval. Its even got
to the state now where accidents like the fatal running over of a child in
Jersey are brushed under the carpet and much made of new trees planted
around the edges of such places instead.
Somebody needs to get themselves a life and realise that curbs were
invented for many reasons, and the main one was as a demarcation line to
keep the dangerous from the vulnerable.

What brought this on? well these town centre ideas seem to be the fodder
for local regional news programs at the moment, and it seems to me that a
whole lot of money is wasted on them which then need to be altered and
new crossings put back about 2 years later when 'footfall' gets lower due
to folk going elsewhere to shop.

As a pedestrian, a cyclist and a motorist, I LOATHE shared spaces. I like in
all situations to know who I have priority over and who has priority over
me: in general, faster vehicle has priority over slower vehicle/person, to
avoid pace-of-the-slowest, but with clearly-understood places where those
rules are temporarily reversed so a pedestrian can safely cross a cycle
track or a road. Making everyone equal, when they capable of very different
speeds, stopping distance and manoeuvrability, is a recipe for disaster - or
else it slows everyone down to the pace of the slowest.

A system which allows everyone to travel at a sensible speed for their
abilities (eg cyclist at 15 mph, car/lorry at 30 mph) while still being
safe, is much better than one which makes people so unsure of where the next
hazard is coming from that they all slow down to 10 mph. Any fool can make a
road safe by slowing everyone down (shared space), but that is draconian: it
takes intelligence to keep traffic moving sensibly while still being safe
(segregation with rules and traffic lights / zebra crossings).

If I was in charge of road layout I would ideally go for three separate
lanes: pedestrian, cyclist, road - with suitable crossing places and with
tactile markings between pedestrian and cycle lane for blind people. Failing
that, I would opt for mandatory cycle lanes on roads, and I would
discontinue all such markings some distance (50 metres?) before every
junction and strictly police all rules about cyclists not overtaking queuing
traffic on the left if it is indicating to turn left. And I would
specifically remove the cycle lanes which force left-turning cars to
position themselves away from the kerb to allow cyclists to pass them on the
left; instead left-turning vehicles of any sort (bike, car, lorry) should be
able to get close to the kerb and therefore not need to check on their
passenger side for anything coming from that side. The current law actually
says that a left-turning car with a green light must give way to a cyclist
on the left who is going straight on, whereas the normal rule, in the
absence of idiotic road markings is "if I'm in front of you and I'm turning
left, do not overtake me on that side". I've seen some junctions where no
cars can ever turn left at busy times because they are blocked by a stream
of cyclists overtaking them on the left in order to go straight on.

Cyclists want to have their cake and eat it: they want to be treated as
"just part of the traffic" but they also want preferential priority at road
junctions.

When I cycle, I ride as if I were driving a car, obeying all the same rules,
and as if I had a number plate which meant I could be reported and
prosecuted if I broke those rules. I make good progress and don't cower near
the kerb, but I am also respectful of traffic that wants to get past me. In
very slow traffic when I can ride as fast as the cars, I usually take up a
position mid-way between the left and right of the car in front, so I can
easily be seen by the driver behind me and the one ahead of me (via his
mirror), ready to move over to the left if traffic speeds up beyond the
speed I can ride at. I do not try to squeeze past slow traffic on either
side - if traffic near a junction is really bad I may dismount and walk on
past the junction, but that is the only way that I will try to get ahead of
the queue. In all other cases I do the same as when I'm driving: curse
inwardly and just grin and bear it.

In article , NY
wrote:
Cyclists want to have their cake and eat it: they want to be treated as
"just part of the traffic" but they also want preferential priority at
road junctions.
When I cycle, I ride as if I were driving a car, obeying all the same
rules, and as if I had a number plate which meant I could be reported
and prosecuted if I broke those rules. I make good progress and don't
cower near the kerb, but I am also respectful of traffic that wants to
get past me. In very slow traffic when I can ride as fast as the cars,
I usually take up a position mid-way between the left and right of the
car in front, so I can easily be seen by the driver behind me and the
one ahead of me (via his mirror), ready to move over to the left if
traffic speeds up beyond the speed I can ride at. I do not try to
squeeze past slow traffic on either side - if traffic near a junction
is really bad I may dismount and walk on past the junction, but that is
the only way that I will try to get ahead of the queue. In all other
cases I do the same as when I'm driving: curse inwardly and just grin
and bear it.

Many decades ago when I cycled in London I used to do the same as above.
The point being that in heavy traffic I could easily cycle as fast as the
motor vehicles. The result was that many drivers got *very* angry with me
for daring to get in from of their car and "slow them down" - even when
both of us were being limited in speed by the car in front us both.

The result was often abuse and threats at me when we got to the next set of
lights. And in some cases a car that forced an overtake by half-moving to
my right and then deliberately moving back to the left when *beside* me.
Forcing me into the parked cars, or up the pavement, or having to brake
abruptly. Very dangerous.

There are bad car drivers and bad cyclists. But cyclists are far more
vulnerable. Having major traffic flows that mix cycles with motor traffic
is inherently dangerous unless everyone involved takes care. Sadly, reality
doesn't meet that condition.

In London I chose to use side roads to avoid the heavy traffic on main
roads. Made journeys longer sometimes. But much safer.

Fortunately, I got into an even safer situation by leaving London. Probably
added years to my life.

On 16/11/2016 16:51, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Fortunately, I got into an even safer situation by leaving London. Probably
added years to my life.

Yes but there are a lot of accidents up your way caused by wild haggis
running out into the road, and a friend of mine was actually attacked by
a buck sporran when he stopped at a lay-by to relieve himself.